Draining taxpayers’ wallets by changing definitions

Share this:

The Tujunga Wash is protected by an automatic retractable screen that prevents trash from entering the storm drain at Vanowen Street and Fulton Avenue in Valley Glen. (Dean Musgrove/Staff Photographer)

A bill being considered in Sacramento about stormwater management funding might not sound like the most exciting topic, but it is the latest in a long line of battles between government officials who want to raise taxes and taxpayers who keep trying to limit their power to reach into their wallets.

While California taxpayers at the state and local levels have approved many tax increases and bond measures over the years, there is a limit to their generosity. Proposition 13, passed by voters in 1978, famously limited increases in property taxes, required a two-thirds majority of lawmakers in each chamber of the Legislature to approve new state taxes and required a two-thirds majority of voters to approve local special taxes.

State and local governments attempted to get around such restrictions by labeling their revenue-enhancing measures “fees” or “assessments.” Voters responded by closing this loophole with the passage of Proposition 218, the “Right to Vote on Taxes Act,” in 1996. The initiative amended the California Constitution to prohibit local governments from imposing, increasing or extending taxes without the approval of a majority of voters for a general tax, whose revenue can be used for any general government purposes, or a two-thirds majority for a special tax, which is imposed for a specific purpose.

“The provisions of this act shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes of limiting local government revenue and enhancing taxpayer consent,” the measure stated.

Yet, the tax-grabbers are once again playing semantic games by trying to change the definitions of the things covered by Prop. 218. Senate Bill 1298, introduced by state Sen. Bob Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, would redefine “sewer service,” which is exempted from the voter approval requirements for tax increases, to include stormwater “works, property or structures.” As staff columnist Susan Shelley explained in a recent Los Angeles Daily News column, “That would allow local governments to charge property owners for stormwater management projects without voter approval.”

This is no small change. “The implications could be huge and expensive,” David Wolfe, legislative director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said in a statement. “Increased costs against ratepayers … could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.”

If additional funding truly is needed for such projects, there is already a means of obtaining it. Local governments just have to sufficiently convince the public that it is necessary, and that taxpayer dollars are, and will continue to be, spent prudently. Or they could opt to attempt to amend the state’s Constitution. But trying to get around a constitutional provision with a statutory change in the definition of terms not only flies in the face of the plain meaning and intent of the law, it is also sure to trigger costly lawsuits for any municipalities that attempt to take advantage of it.

The Legislature should heed the California Constitution and voters’ repeated and insistent commands that they not be taxed for such projects without their consent, and flush SB 1298 out the storm drain.

The editorial board and opinion section staff are independent of the news-gathering side of our organization. Through our staff-written editorials, we take positions on important issues affecting our readership, from pension reform to protecting our region’s unique natural resources to transportation. The editorials are unsigned because, while written by one or more members of our staff, they represent the point of view of our news organization’s management. In order to take informed positions, we meet frequently with government, community and business leaders on important issues affecting our cities, region and state. During elections, we meet with candidates for office and the proponents and opponents of ballot initiatives and then make recommendations to voters.